I'm grant-wishing myself. The grant I'm currently wishing for relates to mitochondrial paternal leakage in birds. It is comforting to know that gods/sky faeries are in the same boat.
Science doesn't have to disprove their existence. The basic idea behind science is pretty simple: prove it or it isn't real. As soon as your system of though allows any claim to be made with out verification, sanity goes out the window. In science, were I to claim that PI = 3, I would be laughed at as a quack and an idiot, and yet people can claim that there is an ancient jewish zombie and an invisible sky bully that rule the universe and nobody will call them out for being bald faced liars.
Now. Now. If you have won this one, then maybe you should be tolerate
It's always comical when bigots and oppressors try to whine that they are the victims, try to pull the "show tolerance of intolerance" crap.
If someone wants to deny people equal rights, deny people the right to get married, based on the color of their skin or their religion or gender, then I will defend their rights such as free speech. However I will not invite them to my dinner table. I will not welcome them in my home. I will not welcome them in my social circle. I will earnestly endeavor not to put on damn dollar in their pocket. And I will damn well use MY right to free speech to call them a vile bigoted scum.
Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance-of-intolerance is self contradictory. Tolerance does not mean I need to be polite or accommodating to a Ku Klux Klan group who are directly harming innocent people, or who inflict or advocate indirect harm of innocent people via laws or other force of government to deny them equal rights.
Whether it's interracial marriage or gay marriage, I do not need to be "tolerant" of the HARM inflicted or advocated in denying people equal rights.
We haven't bought desktops or laptops with mechanical drives in over 3 years. SSDs everywhere.
But you must remember that every poll has about a 10%-wide error bar, and it takes a long time to smooth over the noise and really be sure such a trend has set it.
Most polls use the sample size to obtain a 3% or 4% error margin. The percentages I posted was the midpoint of 6 polls taken this year, and they were all within +/- 3% of what I posted. Very consistent. The vast number of polls over the last few decades show a strikingly clear and steady shift.
The political and other major events on the subject don't seem to be really pushing the numbers around. It seems that this is something that's just plain percolating through society, and the political fireworks and the court battles and the news items are more like an effect of this process rather than a driver of it.
You also have to factor in to things that, as gay-marriage acceptance seems becomes more popular, people are more willing to voice such an opinion. So it might not be that attitudes themselves are actually changing, just that people are willing to be more honest in polls.
I suspect almost the opposite. I think positions are changing faster than feelings. I think a lot of the shift is people who are still "uncomfortable" with the idea of gay marriage, but who are actively overcoming that discomfort to try to "do the right thing". I suspect a lot of the ideas and attitudes and understanding developed during the interracial marriage shift are directly responsible for the speed of the gay marriage shift. I think a lot of people are recognizing that "doing the right thing" here means supporting other people's equal rights, even when it means taking an uncomfortable position.
All of the complex factors behind it is why I find it particularly striking to compare it to the equivalent polls on interracial marriage. The shift on gay marriage is almost exactly twice as fast. Whatever the forces and processes are, they are twice as fast this time. That's huge.
Yeah, and Amstrad released the 8-bit PcW16 in 1995 for whatever crack-addled reason they thought it was a good idea. 16MHz Z80 sure, but still...
Yeah, the C128's video chip (MOS 8563) had it's own 16KB (up to 64KB) of memory so it could operate completely on its own without affecting the rest of the system, to generate its own display. Very clever. The downside being, of course, that the video memory wasn't directly accessible by the CPU, all operations had to go through the video chip.
This wasn't particular unique of course, MSX video chips operated the same way, and the 8563 did have a primitive memcpy hardware to aid in memory manipulation.
Odd that there were so many Z80 systems that shared memory with bitmapped graphics that never had graphics corruption issues that you mention. I guess you are talking about the late 70s, because you're talking about the 8080, static memory, etc. The C128 came out in 1985. The C128's MOS8563 was a character based CGA-alike chip that you are dissing in your post (and like the MC6845 that was used for character based CGA displays, it could be hacked into being a bitmap displaying creature).
The speed of a 4MHz Z80 matched well in reality with a 1MHz 6502. Yes, the 6502 had better IPC, but the Z80 ran far faster to compensate. There were 2MHz 6502s too, as used in the C128 and BBC Micro, these should have allowed these computers to be noticably faster than the Z80 systems, but they weren't.
Actually, it's really odd reading your post, you are mixing up mid/late 70s computers with early/mid 80s computers, at a time when every year brought major progress. I don't see the point of the comparison.
Well it took until the A600 for C= to make a sub $200 Amiga to replace the C64. The $1700 A1000 was not a serious option at the time for people that needed a computer with a software ecosystem.
In 1985, a $300 C128, or a $500 C128D, made a lot of sense for a home computer - a C64 for the kids, a CP/M machine for the parents.
But like all "multipurpose" home computers, it ended up being a C64 for the kids only!
Well, it didn't take off in the way the C64 did, but it still sold 5 million devices, generating $1.5b in revenue for Commodore to waste on bad decisions. Bill Herd says they expected to sell 2 million devices, so in these terms it was a success.
And consider that this was available for $300 too. Yes, a big bundle of chips on a rammed motherboard, very much unlike the far cleaner designs coming out at the time.
It is really odd that not much C128-only gaming software was made - I can only assume that for games this was because the C64 version already worked on the hardware, so why spend extra effort making a C128 variant that actually made use of the faster CPU, extra RAM, and so on? And it was probably hard to compete with the CP/M market for dedicate C128 80-column business software.
Reading the specs of the 80-column chip, the MOS8563, it appears to be very much like the MC6845, but with attributes and a simple blitter.
Yeah, I don't think CP/M or business software really appealed to most young people at the time!
I wonder what the sales of the C128 were like for people who wanted both a C64 for the children during the day, and a CP/M machine for business purposes in the evening (or whatever time periods you want to use)?
True, well argued.
For there to be an energy flow, the life needs to be in a temperature range intermediate between the source and the sink. I'm still a bit worried that if there is a sufficient energy source (most likely a star or geothermal) it will raise the entire environment of the planet significantly above the ambient universal 270K.
However, it really isn't a significant issue. If 270K cosmic temperature is too high for life on planets for whatever reason, it will be comfortable a few million years later. The basic argument of 'a few million years friendly for life everywhere' still holds.